


^^v/^vva/Vt/^^''^^ 



/^ik^vvi-^^ 




^,J-^-^'"' '^^ ^ 



r ^ 





Class ^ <^A 6 

Book - H 'i 1 



J^DMISSIO]Sr OF K^ISrSA-S. 



SPEECH OF HON. JAMES HARLAN, 

OF IOWx\, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 

MARCH 27, 1856. 



The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having 
under consideration the Bill to authonze the people ot" 
Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government pre- 
puratory to their admission into the Union — 

Mr. HARLAN said : 

Mr. Pkesident : I encrage in the discussion of 
tbe treneral snbject, which, it seems to me, lies at 
the foundation of the varying opinions on Kan- 
sas affairs whicli have been expressed hitherto 
by other Senators on the floor of the Senate, with 
rehictanee and embarrassment. The relation I 
sustain to this body, the most angnst on earth, is 
a new one — :he subject is one of overwhelming 
magnitude — and I am surrounded by a disap- 
pointed Senate and a crowded gallery, who have 
been convened, by his high reputation for ability, 
to listen to the honorable Senator from Vermont, 
[Mr. Collam?:r,] in reply to the honorable Sen- 
ator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas.] But, sir, I 
nevertheless proceed, under a conviction that I 
shall never, jirobably, be less in the way than on 
the present occasion. 

Before, however, proceeding to this debate, it 
is no more than just to myself that T should say 
that, although so long the theme of earnest dis- 
cussion in and. out of Congress, I have never 
hitherto attempted or desired to make a speech on 
the perplexing subject of African Slavery as it 
exists in the ITnited States. I had supposed its 
discussion useless, mischievous, and even dan- 
gerous to the perpstuity of the Union. 

But, sitting here in this Chamber, I find there 
are those who do not regard the discussion of 
this subject as dangerous to the continuance of 
this union of States. The highest officer known 
to the Constitution seems to entertain no such j 
fears. Early in the session, and in advance of | 
the organization of the House of Representatives, 
two voluminous Statfc papers were laid before 
Congress and the country' by the Chief Magis- 
trate of the nation, in which this question is 
elaborately discussed : Historicalhi — commencing 
with the origin of the Government, and proceed- 
ing through all its varying vicissitudes, ',tp to the 
date of these messages : Judiciil'i/ — portruying the 



constitutional relations of Slavery to Freedom, of 
the slave States to the free States in the Federal 
Union, and of all the States to the common Ter- 
ritories: I'oliticalli/ — placing \\\5 friend.'; all on the 
side oi' Justice and lawj of the Constitution and of 
the Union ; and his political opponents all in the 
ivrong, in company with those who are said to be 
plottinf/ treason againist the Government under u-hicli 
they live. Since which, a third message, in obedi- 
ence to a resolution of this body, and numerous 
official papers from Kansas, out of which the 
opinio'is of the President and his friends have 
probably been in part formed, have been sent to 
the Senate, eliciting the warm approval of those 
who undertake to speak for him on this floor. 
And, lastly, the Senate and the country have been 
favored with a very voluminous report from the 
Committee on Territories, followed by a long and 
labored speech of its chairman, the honorable 
Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] sustaining 
the opinions of the President. 

Congress may not now, therefore, avoid che 
discussion of this subject without a manifestation 
of great disrespect for the Chief Magistrate of the 
nation, and his friends and supporters. 

But in casting aside my previous prejudices 
<igainst " agitation," and in following the Pres- 
ident through these elaborate State papers, I find 
their whole tenor and spirit at war with the im- 
pressions made on my mind by my previous his- 
torical, political, and legal reading. The repre- 
sentations made by these Kansas papers now 
under immediate consideration, including the ma- 
jority report of the Committee on Territories, arc, 
as I think, perverted, partip.l, and higlily colored. 

I do not propose to enter into a general review 
of all these facts ; but that large bodies of men 
from an adjoining State did enter Kansas for the' 
avowed purpose of controlling her elections, and 
liy false sweating in some districts, and by intici- 
i'iation and force in others, (with guns, and knives, 
and revolvers, driving away the officers of elec- 
tions and Free State voters when necessary for that 
purpose,) did deposit votes in sufficient numbers 
to determine the character of her first Legislature; 
that this Legislature, thus elected by perjury, and 



Ha.s 



violence, and fraud, did enact laws for the estab- 
lishment of Slaverj, with severe and unusual pen- 
alties, violating freedom of speech and of the 
press ; and, to secure the execution of these odious 
laws among an outraged people, rftc^ appoint local 
oflBcers, from the number of their own friends, to 
serve (not for three, or six, or nine months, until 
the people could be called together at the polls to 
elect them, but contrarj' to all precedent) for 
periods of from two to five j'cars ; and that all the 
difficulties in this Territory — the war, the arson, 
the carnage and bloodshed — have been occasioned 
by a perseveriug effort on the part of armed bands 
of men, residing out of the Territory, to compel the 
people to acquiesce in the consummation of this 
high-handed outrage on their rights as freemen, 
is a part of the history of the country which no 
amount of learning, no strength of logic, and no fire 
of eloquence, can ever obliterate. Honorable Sena- 
tors may rise in their places and significantly in- 
quire, as they inquired of the honorable Senator 
from Massachusetts a few days since, for the 
authorities on which these statements are made. 

I respond by inquiring for the authority of the 
world's conviction that Louis Napoleon was ele- 
vated to the throne of uis imperial uncle " by 
force and fraud." Every lip curled with scorn 
when it was officially announced to the nations 
that the people of France had voted almost unani- 
mously in favor of the " empire." Everybody 
knew that this gigantic fraud was secured by the 
influence of a secret police, the threat of the guil- 
lotine, and the arms of the imperial guards, who 
hovered around the polls. But who could prove 
this by other than oral testimouy and newspaper 
articles, which honorable Senators here treat with 
such contempt? None. Just so in the election 
frauds of Kansas — its only parallel for audacity 
in the world's history ! And here, sir, allow me 
to say that I have been somewhat astonished to 
find that the newspapers of England are in higher 
repute in the American Senate than the public 
journals of their own country. Honorable Sen- 
ators complacently quote from the newspapers of 
Great Britain — from the London Times and Tele- 
graph, and others — on a different subject, without 
rebuke, without a sneer, without an expression 
of scorn from other Senators ; but when Senators 
refer to newspapers of their own country, pub- 
lished in a given locality, to sustain historical 
■facts transpiring around them, they are treated 
with derision. How is this ? I desire to know, 
sir, if, in the opinion of this Senate, a despotism 
is more favorable to newspaper veracity than a 
republic ? 

But, Mr. President, oral testimony and news- 
paper statements are sometimes very significant. 
Let any one converse with the people of western 
Missouri, and of western Iowa, as I have done — 
having the honor to represent, in part, that State 
on this floor for the time being — and with the 
people of Nebraska, and the people of Kansas 
herself, and read the newspaper articles on both 
sides of this controverted subject, and they will 
ascertain this singular condition of facts : that 
the Free State men and the Free State papers all 
charge the perjury, the force, the usurpation, and 
the fraud, to which I have alluded, and charge 



them to condemn, whilst th*; Pro- Slavery citizcng 
of those various localities and the Pro-Slavery 
papers admit the force, adroit the usurpation, but 
seek to justify it. They say this was all neces- 
sary for the purpose of protecting the institution 
of Slavery in the State of iMlssouri. There is no 
j denial by them of the leading facts connected 
with this controversy ; and if these facts are 
doubted or called in question by their friends on 
this floor, it will be received by them as no com- 
pliment; for they wear the success which has 
hitherto attended the part they have performed 
in the settlement of the institations of Kansas, aa 
the tallest plume in their crown of honor. 

They first resolved that Kansas should become 
a slave State ; to secure this, it was necessary to 
electa Pro-Slavery Legislature, and they marched 
over and elected one ; deliberately using enough 
force to secure this result. In obedience to their 
will, this Legislature extended over the Territory 
the slave laws of Missouri, and elected officers 
among their friends to enforce these laws. And 
it is for the purpose of cumpelling the people of 
Kansas to recognise as legal, a Legislature which 
they never elected — as valid, laws which they 
never aided to enact — to obey local oflicers for 
whom none of them ever voted — that the Presi- 
dent has ordered out the United States troops in 
that Territory. It never has been pretended, and 
is not now pretended, that the people of Kansas 
have ever refused to obey laws enacted by Con- 
gress, or to respect process issuing from the courts 
of the United States in the hands of the duly-ap- 
pointed marshals. 

But, Mr. President, to compel the people of Kan- 
sas to obey these laws, thus made without their 
sanction, is to establish Slavery in this Territory 
by the strong arm of the Federal Government — 
" squatter sovereignty " to the contrary notwith- 
standing — not peacefully by Congress in these 
Halls, but by the President, at the head of our 
armies. But, believing Congress (if competent) 
a more desirable tribunal for the establishment 
of great questions of State than armed men on 
the battle-field, I ask the indulgence of the Senate 
while T inquire — 

1. Whether the Congress of the United States has 
power to exclude Slavery from her Territories. 

2. Whether thU power ought to be exercised in the 
organization of Territorial Governments where Sla- 
very did not previously exist. 

In support of these propositions, I desire to cite, 
fiist, the declaratory acts of Congress following 
each acquisition of territory by the United 
States. 

In the year 1784, previous to the adoption of 
the Constitution of the United States, Virginia 
ceded to the Confederacy all of her territory lying 
northwest of the Ohio river. All other States 
claiming any interest in this territory made a sim- 
ilar conveyance, with a few comparatively unim- 
portant reservations. This was the first, and com- 
prised all the territory owned by the Confede- 
racy. 

In the year ITST, an Ordinance was adopted by 
the thirteen old States, containing a provision 
styled, " Articles of compact between the original 
' Slates and the people and States in the Northwest 



' Terrllori/^^ vrhicii, xmlcss changed by mutual 
consent, was "to remain unalterable fortrtr." This 
compact provides tiiat 

" Tlu're shall be neither Slavery nor involun- 
' tary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise 
' than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the 
' party shall have been duly convicted." 

This was the act of the thirteen sovereign 
States, While held tofrcther by Articles of Confed- 
eration. It had all the moral force of a regular 
treaty between independent nations. It was in 
form a mere " law of Congress," subject to repeal 
or modification at the will of the majority ; but 
had all the moral elements of a " compact," a bar- 
gain^ concluded, signed, and sealed, between high 
contracting ])arties — unchangeable in its vorj^ na- 
ture, without the consent of all the parties in in- 
terest. And thus it was published and acqui- 
esced in by the people of all the States and Territo- 
ries. None were then found to complain of the 
restriction, and to demand " the right to carry 
their pro])erty " in men and women into these 
Territories. So completely contented were all 
the original States, North and South, with this 
settlement of our Territorial polic}', that in the 
formation of the Constitution ot the United States, 
adopted in the year 1789, conferring on the cen- 
tral Government all the essential elements of na- 
tionality, nothing is said on this subject, only 
that 

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of, 
' and make all needful rules and regulations re- 

* specting, the territory or other property belong- 
' ing to the United States." 

The government of the Territories is not even 
named. This had been provided for by the Ordi- 
nance of 1787, a provision older than the Consti- 
tution, which remained unchanged. 

By an act passed at the First Congress, the Or- 
dinance was modified, and declared to be in full 
force ; and to its provisions all the subsequent 
legislation of Congress quietly conformed for 
more than thirty years. 

I am aware that an objection to the conclusive- 
ness of this declaratory act of Congress has been 
urged with great ability by the honorable Sena- 
tor from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] on tliis floor, a 
few days since, and also in a speech recently de- 
livered by him in Boston. That I may do him no 
injustice, I read from the latter, because in it I 
think his views are represented with more clear- 
ness, precision, and strength, than in his recent 
impromptu reply to the honorable Senator from 
Kew Hampshire, [Mr. Hale.] He says : 

'* From these facts it is clear that this legisla- 
' tioa for the Northwest Territory does not con- 
' flict with the principle I assert, and does not 
' furnish a precedent for hostile legislation by 
' Congress against Slavery in the Territories. 
' That such was neither the principle nor the 
' policy upon which this act of Congress in 1789 
' was based, is farther shown by the subsequent 

* action of the same Congress upon the same 
subject. On the 2d of April, 1790, Congress, by 

* a formal act, accepted the cession by North 

* Carolina of her Western lands, (now the State 
' of Tennessee,) with this clause in the deed of 
t cession ; ' That no regulations made, or to be 



' made, by Congress, shall tend to emancipate 
' slaves' in the ceded Territory; and on the 26tli 
' May, 1790, passed a Territorial bill for the gov- 
' ernmcnt of all the territory claimed by the 
' United States, south of the Ohio river. The 
' description of this territory included all the 
' lands ceded by North Carolina, and it included 
' a groat deal more. Its boundaries were left 
' indefinite, because there were conflicling claims 
' to all the rest of the territory. But this act put 
' the whole country south of the Ohio, claimed 
' by tiie Federal Government, under this Pro- 
' Slavery clause of the North Carolina deed. The 
' whole action of the First Congress in relation to 
' Slavery in the Territories is simply this : it ac- 
' quiesced in a Government for the Northwest 
' Territory, based upon a pre-existing Anti-Sla- 
' verjf Ordinance, established a Government for 
' the country ceded by North Carolina in con- 
' formity with the Pro-Slavery clause in her deed 
' of cession, and extended this Pro-Slavery clause 
' to all the rest of the territory claimed by the 
' United States. This legislation vindicates the 
' First Congress from all imputation of having 
' established the precedent claimed hy the advo- 
' cates of legislative exclusion. On the 7th of 
' April, 1798, (during the administration of Pres- 
' ideut John Adams,) the next Territorial act was 
' passed; it was the first act of Territorial legis- 
' lation resting solely upon primary, original, uu- 
' fettered, constitutional power over the subject. 
' It established a Government over the Territory 
' included within the boundaries of ?• line drawa 
' due east from the mouth of the Yai'.oo river to 
' the Chatahoochee river, thence down that river 
' to the thirty-first degree of north latitude, thence 
' west on that line to the Mississippi, then up 
' that river to the beginning. This Territorj' was 
' within the boundary of the United States, as 
' defined by the treaty of Paris, and was held not 
' to bo within the boundary of any of the States. 
' The controversy arose out of this state of facts. 

" The charter of Georgia limited her boundary 
' in the south by the Altamaha river. In 1763, 
' (after the surrender of her charter,) her limits 
' were extended on the south, by the Crown of 
' Great Britain, to the St. Mary's river, and thence 
' on the thirty-first parallel of latitude to the Mis- • 
' sissippi river. In 1764, it was claimed, that oa 
' the recommeadation of the Board of Trade, the 
' boundary was again altered, and that portion 
' of territory lying within the boundaries I have 
' described was annexed to West Florida, and 
' that thus it stood at the Revolution and treaty 
' of peace. Therefore, the United States claimed 
' it as common property, and in 1798 passed the 
' act now under review for its government. In 
' that act. Congress neither claimed nor exercised 
' any power to prohibit Slavery. The question 
' came directly before it — the Ordinance of 1787, 
' in terms, excluding the Anti-Slavery clause, 
' was applied to this Territory. This is a prece- 
' dent directly in point, and is directly against 
' the exercise of the power now claimed. In 
' 1802, Georgia ceded her Western lands, pro- 
' tecting Slavery in her grant, and the Federal 
' Government observed the stipulation." 

The honcrable Senator argues against the coa- 



/ 



clusiveness of the Ordinance of 1TS7, as a legisla- 
tive precedent, by citing the organic law passed 
in ITOO, for ibe territory south of the Oliio river, 
to which the clause of this Ordinance excluding 
Slavery was not applied; and, also, the organic 
law of the Territory of Mississippi, approved in 
1793, to which all this Ordinance was applied in 
terms, except the clause excluding Slavery. 

To this 1 reply, that the act of iTOO, although 
general, applied iiractically only to the Territory 
ceded by Xorth Carolina — now the State of Ten- 
nessee. Tennessee was an inhabited country. 
As early as 1785, she had made an effort to secure 
a separate State organization. The relation of 
master and slave had previously been establish- 
ed, under the laws of North Carolina; who, in her 
deed of cession, had stipulated tliat Congress 
should enact no law emancipating slaves in the 
ceded Territory. This in no %vay conflicts with 
the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited the ;'«- 
troduction of Slavery into new Territories under 
the unrestricted control of Congress. 

The sains was substantially true of the Terri- 
tory of Mississippi, organized in 1708. It was 
all claimed as a part of Georgia, whose bound- 
ary, by virtue of her charter granted in l73li, ex- 
tended to the ilississippi river. In point of fact, 
however, the settlements on this river were under 
the control of France until 17G.'i, when they were 
formally ceded to Great Britain, and thus con- 
tinued until 1783, when ail norih of the thirty- 
first degree of north latitude became, by treaty, 
the property of tlie United States, over which 
Georgia asserted her previous rights. Slavery 
had been established; the application of that 
clause of the Ordinance which says, "there shall 
' be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in 
' the said Territory,'' would have been to abolish 
Slavery, and not simply to prevent its establish- 
Cicnt. 

In the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803, and of 
the Floridas in 1S19, the jurisJicfion of the Uni- 
ted States was extended over vast territories in 
which Slavery then existed by virtue of French 
and Spanish laws. The right of the people to 
hold slaves in these provinces, it was supposed. 
Lad become vested, and was not unsettled by 
. the treaties convejing them to our Government. 
Hence, Slavery was silently sulfered to exist in 
that part of these Territories in the actual occu- 
pancy of slave propc-.rty. Congress enacted no 
law on the subject. Here it was neither approved 
nor discarded. But in the enactment of the 
Missouri Compromise, in the year 1820, Congress 
provided that neither Slavery nor involuntary 
servitude should ever be permitted north of 
thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. The prin- 
ciples of the Ordinance of 1787 were extended 
over the territories now embraced within the 
litnits of Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, and Nebras- 
ka — then mostly uninhabited. From the history 
of these transactions, the conclusion is irresisti- 
ble, that Congress intended that all of the im- 
jnense territoi'ies ceded by France and Spain to 
this Government, not in the occupancy of slave- 
holding communities, should remain forever free ; 
ana here our Territorial policy again rested for 
about a quarter of a century. 



In the " joint resolution," passed by Congress 
in the year 1845, "for annexing Texas to the 
United States," it was provided that 

"New States of convenient size, not exceeding 
' four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, 
' and having suliicient poiuilations, may hereafter, 
' and by the consent of said Slates, be formed out 
' of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled 
' to admission under the provisions of the Federal 
' Constitution. And such States as may be formed 
' out of that portion of s:),id territory lying south 
' of 3G° 30^ north latitude, commonly known as 
' the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted 
' into the Union with or without Slavery, as the 
' people of each State asking admission may 
' desire. And in such State or States as sliall be 
' formed out of said territory north of said 
' Missouri Compromise line. Slavery or involun- 
' tary servitude (except for crime) shall be pro 
' hibited." 

In the event of the division of this vast domain 
of Texas, it was provided that one or more of 
these four new States should be absolutely free, 
and that all the remaining States thus formed 
might be admitted as free States, should the people 
desire it. And here again the subject rested until 
the year 1850. 

But in the adjustment of the difficulties grow- 
ing out of the acquisition of large territories from 
Mexico, as trophies of war. Territorial Govern- 
ments were established for Utah and New Mexico, 
with a conditional provision for each : 

"That when admitted as a State, the said Ter- 
' ritory, or an}- portion of the same, shall be re- 
' ceived into the Union with or without Slavery, 
' as their Constitution may prescribe at the lime 
' of their admission.'' 

Here, for the first time, the Territorial policy of 
the Government, settled and uniform for nearly 
three quarters of a century, was changed. All 
the machinery of the ship of State here began to 
revolve in a ditferent direction. The Northwest 
Territory, now embraced within the limits of tive 
large and j)Owerful States, was originally slave 
territory/, by virtue of the laws of Virginia, (and 
other slave States ceding it to the Union,) as much 
so as the Territory of Kentucky, once held as a 
part of her dominions. But, by the Ordinance of 
1787, it was all dedicated to Freedom. 

The territory now embraced within the limits 
of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas, was 
doubtless slave territoiy, by virtue of French and 
Spanish laws. But by the enactment of the Mis- 
souri Comjiromise it was dedicated to Freedom. 

All the vast domain of Texas was, without dis- 
pute, slave territory, by virtue of her own laws, 
enacted and enforced during her nationality. But. 
by the legislation of Congress admitting her into 
the Union, a large part of this, too, is prospect- 
ively dedicated to Freedom. But the Territories 
of New Mexico and Utah were, by virtue of 
Mexican laws, at!sohtely free, when, by the 
legislation of the Congress of the United States, 
they were thrown open to Slavery. 

But this revulsion in the Territorial policy ct 
the Government in 1850 ; this conditional conver- 
sion of free territory to the uses of Slavery, m 
violation of tlie settled policy of the country, 



growitjff out of whalliad been supposed to bo "the 
compromises of the Coustiiutioii," and in viola- 
tion of the moral iVeiings ntid clear convictions of 
right of an overwhelmiug mujority of the Amer- 
ican people, was secured, not by denying the power 
of Congress to exclude Slavery, but in the name 
of concussion and conq^ronihe, i»nd as a condition 
for the admission ot California u-ilhoiU Slduerij, 
although prcviuud;/ fr<>e by force of Mexican laws, 
and by virtue of her oivn C'vnutilitiion at the time 
of her aj)plicutioa — in connection with the enact- 
ment of laws for the modiiicatiou of the boundary 
of the State of Texas, the abolition of the slave, 
trade in the District of Columbia, and the returu 
of fugitives from labor. 

The pixssage of these organic laws for Utah 
and New Mexico completed the settlement of the 
question of Slavery in all the Territories of the 
United States. Slavery was notprohibited in Utah 
and New Mexico by the laws of Congress ; but 
in all that vast region, including Minnesota, Kan- 
sas, Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington, Slavery 
was still prohibited. This adjustment, obtained 
through the influence of such men as Clay and 
Webster — now passed to their final reward — and 
men that I see around me, with the legislative ex- 
perience of half a century crowning their brows, 
was said to be final. Reposing confidence in the 
wisdom and patriotism of statesmen who had 
stood firmly by their country's flag and the Con- 
stitution during the darkest hours of our national 
history — who had been defenders of liieir homes 
and their rights while the majority of them were 
still in their mothers' arms, the people peaceably, 
though in many instances restlessly and reluc- 
tantly, acquiesced in this supposed " finality." 
The admission of Slavery into Utah and New 
Mexico was not claimed as a constitutional right; 
it was asked as an element of compromise. No 
one is sutiiciently reckless to pretend that the 
Compromise Measures of 1850 could have received 
the approval of Congress, much less of the peo- 
ple, with the understanding that this enactment 
opened all the Territories of the Union to the oc- 
cupancy of slaveholding communities. 

In support of the proposition stated, I desire, 
in the second place, to cite the legislation of Con- 
gress in the organization of Territorial Govern- 
ments and in the admission of States formed out 
of territory previously free. 

From these citations (I remark, in passing) it 
will be seen that the President is in error when 
he says, in his annual message, in relation to the 
prohibition of Slavery in the Northwest Territory 
by the Ordinance of 1787, that 

" Subsequent to the Constitution, this provision 
' ceased to remain as a law, for its operation was 
' absolutely superseded by the Constitution." 

In the year 1789, the very first Congress con- 
vened under the provisions of the Constitution 
passed a law transferring certain duties imposed 
by this Ordinance on Congress to the President of 
the United States, (as is expressly stated in the 
preamble to this law:) 

" In order that the Ordinance of the United 
' States in Congress assembled for the govern- 
ment of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio 



' may continue to have full effect. " — {Statutes ai 
Large, vol. 1, p. .''»0.) 

In theye.ar 1800, Congress declared, in the or- 
ganic law ot the Territory of Indiana, 

" That there shall be eslablished v.'ithin said 
' Territory a Government in all respects similar to 
' that provided by the Ordinance of Congress pass- 
' ed on the 13lh day of July, 1787, for the govern- 
' meiit of the Territory of tlie United States north- 
' west of the river Ohio ; and the inhabitants 
' shall be entitled to and enjoy all and singular 
' the rights, privileges, and advantages, granted 
' and secured to the people by the said Ordi- 
' nance." — [Statutes at Larffe, vol. 2, p. 59.) 

In 1802, (Ajiril 30.) Congress passed a law t-o 
enable tlje people of Ohio to form a State Consti- 
tution, ill which it is provided that said Constitu- 
tion shall not " be repugnant to the llrdinance of 
the 13th July, 1787, between tiie original States 
and the people and States of the Territory north- 
west of the river Ohio." — (Statutes at Large, vol. 
2, p. 174.) 

In 1809 (February 3,) Congress incorporated 
the same provision in the organic law of Illinois 
that was made a part of the organic law of Indi- 
ana. — (Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 515.) 

In 1805, the same provision was made in the 
organic law of Michigan. — [Statutes at Large, vol. 
2, p. 309.) 

In the year 181 G, (April 19,) Congress passed 
a k'W authorizing the people of Indiana to form 
a State Constitution, in wiiich it is provided 

" That the same, whenever formed, sii.'.il be re- 
' publican, and not repugnant to those articles of 
' the Ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which 
' are declared to be irrevocable between the orig- 
' inal States and the people and States of the 
' Territories northwestof the Ohio river." — [Stat- 
utes at Large, vol. 3, p. 290.) 

In 1816, (December 11,) Congress passed a 
resolution declaring, among other things, that 
" whereas the Constitution formed by the j^eople 
' of the Territory of Indiana is republican, and ia 
' conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance" 
above recited, " the said State is admitted into 
the Union. " — [Statutes at Large, vol. 3, p. 399.) 

In 1818, Congress authorized the people of Illi- 
nois to form a State Constitution, conditioned that 
it should conform to the provisions of the Ordi- 
nance of 1787. — [Statutes at Large vol. 3, p. 
430.) 

On Decembers, 1818, Illinois was by resolution 
admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, oa 
the ground that her Constitution, thus formed, 
did conform to the provisions of the Ordinance of 
1787. — [Statutes at Ljurge, vol. 3, p. 53G.) 

In the year 1820, as we have before stated, 
Congress declared, in the law providing for the 
admission of Missouri into the Union, 

"That in all that territory ceded by France to 
' the United States, under the name of Louisiana, 
' which lies north of thirty -six degrees and thirty 
' minutes, not included within the limits of the 
' State contemplated by this act, Shiverg and in- 
' voluntary servitude, otherwise than in the pun- 
' ishment of crimes, • whereof the parties shall 
' have been duly convicted, shall be, and is here- 



'by, forever prohibited." — (Statutes at Large, vol. 
3, p. 548.) 

In 1836, in the passage of the organic law of 
the Territory of Wisconsin, which embraced 
what is now the States of AVisconsin and Iowa 
and the Territory of Minnesota, Congress again 
extended and applied the provisions of the Ordi- 
nance of 1787 to an immense country beyond the 
limits of the Northwest Territory. — (Statutes at 
Large, vol. 5, p. 15.j 

In 1 838, Congress again endorsed this Ordinance 
of 1787, in the passage of the organic law of 
Iowa, by extending to the people of this Territory 
" all the privileges, rights, and immunities, hith- 
erto enjoyed by the people of Wisconsin." — (Stat- 
utes at Large, vol. 5, p. 2.39.) 

In 1845, Congress declared, (as we have before 
stated,) in the act providing for the admission of 
Texas as a member of the Union, that Slavery 
should be prohibited in any State or States there- 
after to be formed out of the territory north of 
the Missouri Compromise line established in 
1820. — (Statutes at Large, vol. 5, p. 798.) 

In 1848, (March 3,) Congress extended the pro- 
visions of the Ordinance of 1787 to all the terri- 
tory of the United States west of the Rocky 
Mountains, north of the forty-second degree of 
north latitude, known as the Territory of Ore- 
gon, in the following words : 

" And be it further enacted. That the inhabitants 

* of said Territory shall be entitled to enjoy all 
' and singular the rights, privileges, and adv.an- 
' tages, granted and secured to the people of the 
' Territory of the United States northwest of the 
' river Ohio, by the .articles of compact contained 
' in the Ordinance for the government of saiii Ter- 
' ritory, on the 13th of July, 1787 ; and shall be 
' subject to all the conditions, and restrictions, 
' and prohibitions, in said articles of compact 
' imposed upon the people of said Territory." — 
(Statutes at Large, vol. 9, p. 329.) 

This embraced both Oregon and Washington 
Territories. In 1849, the same provision enacted 
in regard to Iowa was incor]:)orated into the 
organic law of Minnesota. — (Statutes at Large, 
Tol. 9, p. 407.) 

But all this mass of consecutive legislation, ex- 
cept the act of 1820, is ignored by the President. 
He tells us that this provision of the Ordinance of 
1787 ceased to remain as a law, being ahsolutebj 
superseded by the Constitution. It is unfortunate 
for the correctness of this statement, that the Stat- 
utes at Large of the United States have been pub- 
lished from session to session by authority of 
Congress, and scattered broadcast over these 
States ; it is unfortunate for its credence, that so 
many millions of the freemen of this Republic 
can read plain English ! 

But the honorable Senator from Georgia 
takes precisely the opposite tack. He denies the 
position of the President, and says that this Ordi- 
nance 

" Purported on its face to be a perpetual com- 

* pact between the State of Virginia, the people 

* of the Territories, and the then Government of 

* the United States. It was unalterable except by 
' all the parties. The division of that Territory 
' was provided for in the Ordinance ; at each 



' division, the whole of the Ordinance was ap- 
' plied to each of its parts. Congress did not 
' assert or exercise the right to alter a compact 
' entered into with the former Government, (the 
' old Confederation,) but gave its assent to the 
' Government already established, and provided 
' for in the compact. If the original compact 
' was void for want of power in the old Govern- 
' ment to make it, as Mr. Madison supposed, Con- 
' gress may not have been bound to accept it — it 
' certainly had no power to alter it." 

The honorable Senator from Georgia arrives 
at an erroneous conclusion, only because his 
premises are untrue. This Ordinance does not 
purport on its face to be a compact between Vir- 
ginia and the people of the Territories, and the 
United States, but a "compact between the origi- 
' nal States, and the people and States in the said 
' Territory." Virginia was no party to the bargain, 
"on its face;" nor v\-ere the people and States in 
said Territories contracting parties. There were 
no States in the said Territory; the people had 
no organization ; they had do power to bargain 
until after the Ordinance was passed ; and the 
Ordinance bears the signature of no representa- 
tive of Virginia, nor of the Territory — and of no 
one but " William Grayson, chairman " of Con- 
gress, and " Charles Thompson, Secretary." In 
other words, it was a law of the United States, 
passed in the usual form, containing a solemn 
declaration of the future policy of the Govern- 
ment on the subject of Slavery in her Territories. 
It was no more irrepealablc than the Missouri 
Compromise. Like the latter, it had all the 
moral elements of a perpetual covenant; but, 
legally, " it was a mere law of Congress ; " and 
that, too, of a Congress under the Confederation, 
with fewer elements of sovereignty, with less 
power to bind the individual States, than is now 
possessed by Congress under the Constitution. 
Hence, if Congress had the power to repeal the 
Missouri Compromise, which literally means an 
agreement, a bargain, a " compact," it had the 
power to repeal the Compromise of 1787. They 
were both declaratory acts of Congress — nothing 
more. The veracity and honor of the nation 
were at stake. She had solemnly declared that 
Slavery should not be permitted in the Northwest 
Territory; and that in the Louisiana Territory 
north of 36'' 30^ Slavery should he forever prohib- 
ited. This was the voice of the supreme power 
of the United States, s;>oken in the presence of 
the enlightened nations of the earth. But it was 
" a nude compact" — it bound no one but herself. 
If she chose to violate her plighted faith with 
her own citizens, and to stand a giant liar among 
the nations, she doubtless had the power. 

But be this as it may, these legislative prece- 
dents are not confined to subdivisions of the 
Northwest Territory. They have constantly fol- 
lowed the progress of population in the free ter- 
ritory. It was first applied to Ohio ; when the 
tide of population rolled across the Miami, it was 
applied to Indiana; when it crossed the Wabash, 
it was applied to Illinois ; when it surged up to 
the Northern lakes, it was applied to Michigan; 
when it hugged the western shore of the lakes 
up to the British possessions, and dashed across 



the great Father of Waters, it was applied to Wis- 
consin, including Iowa and Minnesota, both of 
which were beyond the boundaries of llie North- 
west Territory ; and when it overleaped the Rocky 
Mountains, tliis great vertebral column of the 
world, it was applied to Oregon and Washington, 
boundeil by the Pacific Ocean. These consecutive 
legislative precedents, commencing in 1787, and 
continuing to 1854, stand unimpcached and un- 
impeachable by anj' conclusive reasoning. 

I observe, in the third place, there is no adverse 
decision of the Supreme Court. 

In 1854, Congress repealed the Missouri Com- 
promise, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. 
The power of Congress to exclude Slavery from 
the Territories was then for the first time (lenied. 

The President has also declared these laws to 
be unconstitutional. He says, on the subject of 
the organization of the Territories of Utah and 
New Mexico : 

" In the councils of Congress, there were man- 
' ifested extreme differences of opinion and action 
' between some Representatives, who desired the 
' unconstitutional emploj'raent of the legislative 
' powers of the Government to interfere in the 
' condition of the inchoate States, and to impose 
* their own social theories upon the latter, and 
' other Representatives, who repelled the interpo- 
' sition of the General Government in this respect, 
' and maintained the self-controlling rights of 
' the States. 

" Once more the Constitution of the United 
' States triumphed signally ; the new Territories 
' were organized without restrictions upon the dis- 
' puted point, and were thus left to judge ki that 
' particular for themselves." 

Those who desired Congress to exclude Slavery 
from the Territories were said " to desire the 
exercise of unconstitutional power ; " and when 
Congress enacts laws throwing open territory', 
before free, to the occupancy of Slavery, he tells 
us " that the Constitution of the Union triumphed 
signally." 

But, Mr. President, I desire here to inquire 
whence the President of the United States derived 
the power to adjudicate the constitutionality of 
laws which had previously passed through all 
the usual forms of legislation? I had supposed 
that such adjudications more fitly belonged to 
another department of the Government. The 
framers of the Constitution originally conferred 
this power on the Supreme Court. 

Under the Constitution, Congress may enact 
laws, the courts may adjudicate them, and the 
President may execute them. These three de- 
partments of the Government should remain dis- 
tinct, because their union forms a despotism. 

But if neither the President nor Congress may 
expound the laws without a usurpation of powers 
never conferred by the Constitution, I inquire for 
the opinions of the Judiciary on which the dec- 
larations of the President and of Congress are 
based. For if these laws were in fact unconsti- 
tutional, it would be strange if none of the courts 
of the country, State or National, in all the com- 
plicated adjudication that has arisen since 1789, 
have had occasion to pronounce them void. The 
President pronounces these laws unconstitutional. 



Senators say they were unconstitutional. Congress 
repealed the Missouri Compromise because it was 
unconstitutional; and all who opposed this repeal 
are deuouuced as enemies to the Constitution. 
And yet ihacourls, the only coiuiitulionoL tribunals 
on earth that have the right to adjudicate such 
questions, have never, I believe, even intimated 
such an opinion I 

If I am in error in this, let old and experienced 
Senators here, whose knowledge must be perfect 
on this subject, correct me. Does no one answer ? 
I hear no reply. Then I infer there are no such 
decisions, well authenticated, of any court of the 
country, State or National. Then, sir, what be- 
comes of these charges of " treason against the 
Constitution and the Union," so liberally fulmi- 
nated against the opponents of Slavery in Kansas? 
Before I am condemned as an enemy of my coun- 
try, as a political traitor to her fundaoiental law, 
I desire to know that some court of competent 
jurisdiction has decided that my opinions are in 
conflict with the Constitution. 

I will not detain the Senate with the presenta- 
tion of judicial opinions sustaining the constitu- 
tionality of the uniform legislation of Congress, 
which I have cited. The honorable Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] discussed this point to 
some extent a few days since. It is not necessary 
for ray argument ; for the entire absence of any 
judicial opinion, State or National, in conflict with 
the constitutionality of these laws, in all the adju- 
dication that has arisen during nearly seventy 
years, amounts to a negative pregnant, as potent 
in its convincing efficacy as the most elaborate 
adjudication. 

In the next place, I argue the existence of power 
in the Congress of the United States to legislate 
on the subject of Slavery in the Territories, from 
the relation which they sustain to the Govern- 
ment. 

In each of the States of the Union, the power 
of the General Government is restricted. Here 
the sovereignty is divided between the State and 
the United States. The powers of the United 
States are all derived from the State; but the 
powers of Congress in the Territories are not thus 
derived from a local Government — the order is 
reversed, and the Territorial Government derives 
all its powers from the Government of the United 
States. 

The Government of the United States acquired 
all her rights in the Northwest Territory, not by 
grant of all the old thirteen States through the 
Constitution, but by deed from Virginia ; in the 
Territory of Tennessee, from North Carolina ; 
in the Southwest Territory, including Mississippi 
and Alabama, from Georgia and Great Britain ; 
in the Floridas, from Spain; in the Louisiana 
Territory, from France. The United States was 
the successor of each of these; and it is a well- 
settled principle of national law, that whatever 
the original sovereign of each of these might 
have done within its limits, while a part of his 
dominions, might be done by his successor. 

Prior to the year 1803, I suppose, full, com- 
plete, and exclusive sovereignty in the Louisiana 
Territory (including Kansas and Nebraska) was 
vested in France. The Governmeot of the United 



8. 



States, 03- a direct purchase, succeeded to all the 
rights and sovereignty origiually possessed by 
the grantor : and lience became the actual, full, 
complete, and exclusive sovereign of the Terri- 
tory. I suppose no one of the old thirteen States 
ever had any right, title, claim, or interest, in or 
to any part of the Louisiana Territory. No one 
of them had ever exercised any jurisdiction over 
it. It was a part of the dominions of France; 
she was its absolute sovereign. Hence the Gov- 
ernment of the United States must have suc- 
ceeded to the same unrestricted rights, and may 
hold, exercise, and enjoy them, until she chooses 
to confer them on another sovereignty. If France, 
previous to the cession, could have excluded 
Slavery from Kansas and Nebraska, this Govern- 
ment may do so now, suljject only to the pro- 
vision in the Constitution which says that Congress 
may make all nei'dftil rules and regulations re- 
specting the Territories. The necessity of every 
rule and regulation is a fit subject for legislative 
discretion, for the exercise of which Congress is 
responsible to the people of the whole country, 
and not to the people of any individual State. 

I will not here stop to argue the question of 
the constitutional right of the United States to 
acquire foreign territory. Mr. Jefl'erson and others 
have doubted the existence of this power under 
the Constitution. But with the power to acquire 
must follow the right to govern. 

I argue the power of Congress to exclude 
Slavery from the common Territories, from the 
undisputed right to pass the Kansas-Nebraska 
act, conferring on the people " the right to regu- 
liite their own domestic institutions in their own 
way." 

If Congress had no power under the Constitu- 
tion to regulate the domestic institutions of Kan- 
sas — to regulate the rights of person and of 
property — it could uot confer this right on the 
people of the Territory. The grantor cannot 
cpnvey rights and prerogatives which he never 
possessed. The grantee tan never take more than 
the grantor himself held. It is absurd to suppose 
Congress capable of transferring to the people of 
Kansas rights, and privileges, and prerogatives, 
which Congress never possessed. The grant 
is worthless, if the original holder had no title. 
Hence the advocates of "squatter sovereignty" 
are driven to admit that all the rights, and privi- 
leges, and power, of the Territorial Legislature of 
Kansas, were previously vested in the Govern- 
ment of the United States. But if this Govern- 
mentoriginally possessed the right to legislate for 
this Territory, and has since intrusted its exercise 
to a local Legislature, she is still responsible. The 
principal is responsible for the acts of the agent 
within the limits of his instructions. What a 
man does by an agent, he does by himself. Hence, 
what this Gorerjiment does by another, she does 
by herself. What she does by the " spurious " 
Legislature of Kansas, is her own act. The real 
sovereign can never avoid the responsibility of 
governing, by interposing a subordinate. Hence, 
these Kansas laws, enacted by her " Rump " 
Legislature, establishing Slavery, appointing offi- 
cers for a period of from two to five years, abridg- 
ing " freedom of speech and of the press," and 



making it a penal ofifence to deny the validity of 
such laws, are the laws of Congrcg.i. By recog- 
nising them, and snfl'ering the President to enforce 
them, you make them your own. 

This conclusion can only be avoided by sup- 
posing Congress to have transferred this sover- 
eignly to the jjeople of the Territory, without 
reservation — without the right of review and repeal. 
But if this right to make all local laws regulating 
the relations of husband and wife, parent and 
child, guardi;in and ward, master and slave, as 
well as the rights of person and property, waa 
transferred absolutely, and irrevocably vested in 
the people of the Territories of Kansas and Ne- 
braska by the law of 1854, Congress in thai cct 
created two Stales. Something less then a sov- 
ereign might intei-pret and applj' a law, sometliirg 
less than a sovereign might enforce its provisions ; 
but nothing less than "the supreme power in a 
State" can make a law. If, then, the people of 
Kansas have power, under the Constitution of 
the United States, to legislate on all tit subjects 
of lagishition, as perfectly as Virginia, or Iowa, 
or New York, independent of Congress, she is 
NOW A State I — and she became a State the mo- 
ment this supreme power to make all needful 
laws was conferred. 

It may be said, however, that these organic 
laws do not confer power on the Territorial Legis- 
latures ; that they are merely declaratory of " great 
principles of government;" that the right to 
govern is inherent in the people : that it is not 
the subject of transfer ; that it is an inalienable 
right ; that it follows American citizens wherever 
they may go within the jurisdiction of the United 
States ; that the right of self-government, held as 
citizens of a State, is carried by the people to the 
Territories ; that it is never lost ; that to take it 
away is an act of despotism. 

But this does not change the conclusion. It mat- 
ters not ichence the power is derived — whether from 
Congress or from nature; whether from the Gov- 
ernment of the United States or from Jehovah 1 
Does the power to make all needful laws exist in 
the Territory? Is it absolutely vested in the peo- 
ple of Kansas ? You say in the Kansas-Nebraska 
act that it is thus vested ; and being so vested, that 
Congress is released from all responsibility grow- 
ing out of the character of these laws. But if the 
people of Kansas have the absolute right to make 
all needful laws for their own government, they 
may create offices and fill them ; they may establish 
courts, appoint judges and executive ofiBcers. 
The power to make laws, without the power to 
interpret and applj' them, is worthless. The 
power to make and adjudicate laws, without the 
power to execute, is perfectly nugatory. It is a 
mere pretence — a shadow — a name — a mockery. 

The appointment of a temporary Governor, and 
judges, and marshals, to put the machinery of 
State in motion, maj' have been well ; but when 
these utterly fail to effect the object of their ap- 
pointment, and bring about anarchy and civil 
war, the people — if sovereign, clothed with the SU' 
preme power of a State, the power to make all need- 
ful laws — would be unworthy the honor of the 
American name, should they neglect to provide 
for themselves. And it is marvellous that the 



snthors of the Kansas-Nebraska act — the authors 
of the doctrine of squatter sovereignty in Kansas — 
should complain that her people have organized 
a Slate Government. As well might the old 
heathen deity, whose prolific brain gave binh to a 
Minerva, when confronted by his own olfspring, 
complain that he had created a god. 

But if Kansas is not a State — if she does not 
possess the power to make laws, "\vhich is defined 
to be "the nuprenu: power inaStiite" — if this 
right of self-government w^a.s' not carried by the 
people from the States to this Territory — and if 
Congress did not confer on the people of Kansas 
the right to enact all needful laws, and to regu- 
late their own domestic institutions in their own 
way — if the squatters are not novereign — then this 
supreme power must be vested in the Government 
of the United States. Her will, legitimately ex- 
pressed, is the law. She has the full and com- 
plete power, in legislating for her Territories, ''to 
command what is right, and to prohibit what is 
wrong." 

The power of Congress to exclude Slavery from 
all the Territories of the United States, not em- 
braced within the limits of any State, being estab- 
lished or conceded, I inquire, secondly, whether 
this power ought to be exercit<ed in the establishment 
of Territorial Governments where Slavery did not pre- 
viously exist. 

In the discussion of this proposition, I desire 
to probe the subject to the core. I prefer to brush 
away the surface rubbish, and to lay the founda- 
tions of the superstructure on the solid rock. 

1. Is Slavery right? Is it in accordance with 
the principles of natural justice ? The time has 
been, when very few in the country defended the 
moral right of one man to hold another in perpetual 
bondage. Its continuance hitherto has been 
defended by citing the difficulties that surrounded 
the question of emancipation. But the passage 
of the Kansas-Nebraska law has wrought a sad 
change, I fear, in the moral tone and temper of 
this discussion. Members of Congress now tell 
you that the enslavement of the African race by 
the Anglo-Sa.\on is no evil; that it is a blessing; 
that it is the natural condition of the two races ; 
that an enlightened philanthropy requires the 
enslavement of the African ; that he belongs to an 
inferior race; that he cannot endure the shock of 
contact with his superiors ; that annihilation or 
servitude is the only alternative. 

As the African is presented to my mind by the 
traveller and the historian, and by tny personal 
observation, I am compelled to admit the inferi- 
ority ; but, if the right of the Anglo-Saxon to 
enslave him dejjends on his manifest inferiority, 
it becomes the duty of every Senator to examine 
closly the nature of that inferiority. Is it the 
result of the enslavement of his ancestry for more 
than a thousand years, or is if a natural, specif c 
difference, dfi'cloprd in an analyxis of the elementary 
la/ivs of matter and of mind? 

In laying the foundations of new States, this 
problem is worthy of the careful attention of the 
proudest and wisest statesman on the floor of the 
American Senate ; for in its solution he legislates, 
by its influence, for the whole human race — not 
only for the one thousand millions of people that 



now live, but for these teeniing millions, as they 
shall continue to come and go while time shall 
last. 

That each may arrive at a correct decision of 
the nature of the admitted inferiority of the Afriara 
to the Anglo-Saxon, I request Senators to allow 
me to refer them to their eurly elementary read- 
ing — to a succinct view of this subject, derived 
from standard writers on physical, mental, and 
mt)r.al ;^cieuce — from such works as are used in 
colleges, academies, and seminaries of learning, 
all over the country — such works as are placed 
in the hands of the student of law, of medicine, 
and of theology. 

Piiysiologists tell us that there is no speviftr 
difference in the physical structure of the two 
races ; that the solid parts of their bodies are 
constituted of the same number of liones and 
joints, similarly located and distributed; that 
there is not a muscle, or tendon, or ligament, or 
vein, or artery, or secretion, or absorbent, or 
nerve of motion or of volition, found in the or- 
ganism of one, that does not exist in the other ; 
that each possesses the same senses of sight, of 
touch, of taste, of smelling, and of hearing ; that 
each possesses the same specific means of masti- 
cation, digestion, and procreation. There are, how- 
ever physical dill'erences. The skin of one is 
black — of the other, white; the hair of one, fine 
and knotted — of the other, coarse and straight ; 
the lips of the one, thick and protruding — of the 
other, thin and compressed ; and the perspira- 
tory exhalations of the one are said to be more 
odorous than of the other. But these are all said 
to be but superficial modifications of the same 
specific faculties and functions. No specific or- 
gan has been omitted or added. 

We are told, by writers on mental science, that 
the natural sensibilities are aroused in both by 
the use of the same organs ; that the African 
and Anglo-Saxon alike experience pleasure in 
the mastication of food, in the inhalation of fra- 
grant odors, in the exercise of the sense of touch, 
in gazing at the beauties of creation, and in listen- 
ing to the melody and harmony of sounds ; that 
the same sounds, and colors, and motions, and 
heights, and depths, and expanses, and manifest- 
ations of power, that elevate tlie feeiings of one 
to a key of grandeur or sublimity, overwhelm the 
other with kindred emotions. Tiiey tell us that 
in each they find the same specific desires, in- 
stincts, appetites, and passions ; that each may 
love, and hope, and fear, and hate — may be en- 
vious, jealous, and revengeful ; that in each they 
discover the faculty of percejition, of conception, 
of memory, of imagination, of belief, and of will j 
that each exjieriences paternal, fraternal, and fil- 
ial affection ; that each ex[)eriences emotions of 
humanity, of patriotism, and of piety. 

From this physical and mental analysis, it will 
be perceived that each organ may be v;caker in 
one race than in the other; but that in other re- 
spects they do not materially differ. The anato- 
my of the one is the anatomy of the other ; the 
mental science that describes the laws of mind of 
the one, delineates the spiritual nature of the 
other ; the moral philosophy that analyzes the 
moral emotions of the one, reveals the moral fac- 



10 



ulties of the other. All the laws of health and 
culture applicable to the one, are applicable to 
the other. The same physician that prescribes 
for the African slave in his hovel, ou a bed of 
straw, prescribes with equal success for his mas- 
ter, in a stately mansion, on a couch of down. 
The same minister of righteousness who soothes 
thesorrows and assuagts the griefs and energizes 
the hopes of the slave, when the shadows of 
death hover around him, administers with equal 
success the consolations of the same Gospel to 
the man of whiter skin. 

The manifest inferiority of the African to the 
Anglo-Saxon does not consist in a generic or 
specific ditJerence. It is that kind of inferiority 
which, doubtless, the enlightened statesman 
would e.\pe(;t to find among the descendants of 
those who had been doomed to absolute servi- 
tude, from time immemorial. His body is less 
eymmetrical; his face less beautiful; his appe- 
tites, passions, instincts, and desires, less man- 
ageable ; his perceptions less acute ; his concep- 
tions, less clear; his memory, consciousness, be- 
lief, powers of reasoning and will, more feeble ; 
his love of parents, of offspring, of man, of coun- 
try, of truth, of honor, of justice, and of God, less 
reliable. But is any one of these absent? If so, 
what element of manhood has been omitted ? 
None ; not one ! 

But if" he is inferior to the white man" in this 
sense — if his body w weak, his mind feeble, his 
moral sensibilities obtuse — does that confer the 
right on the man of strong body, of vigorous 
intellect, and of acute moral sensibilities, to seize, 
overawe, and enslave him ? Is it miffht that deter- 
mines the right? Because you have the jROKer, 
may you of rii^ht enslave your fellow-men ? Is 
this the voice of Northern gallantry and of South- 
ern chivalry? 

It might do for Louis Napoleon, as he sits on 
a usurped throne, to claim the ric//it, because he 
has the poiver, to control the destinies of other 
men. It might do for Ale.vander, the Czar of Rus- 
sia, as he sits enthroned where the old Wizard of 
the North spirited away the liberties of Europe, 
to make miffht the measure of ri(/ht. But will it do 
for the American Senate to endorse and defend this 
doctrine of tyrants, discarded by our fathers — 
to place this country, in the eyes of the civilized 
nations, on the platform of the despots of the Old 
World, which has so long been the object of our 
ridicule and scorn ? If not, you must return to 
the doctrine of the fathers of the Republic, and 
defend the weak agiiinst the aggression of the res- 
olute and powerful. It will not do to deny the 
privilege of Freedom to all who are your inferiors 
in physical, mental, and moral strength. Adopt 
this doctrine, and the Anglo-Saxon must proceed 
to enslave the world ; for he is now, doubtless, 
the strongest race on the globe. 

This modern doctrine of Kansas Democracy — 
the right of the sirontj to enslave the iveak — is at 
war with the original reason for civil society. He 
who is able to defend his own rights and to avenge 
his own wrongs needs not the interposition of 
the strong arm of the law for his protection; but 
to defend the weak and to protect the defenceless 
Is the imperative duty of the State. — Sir, may I 



interpret that smile of an honorable Senator? Is 
it the satisfied spirit contemplating great political 
truths, that thus illuminates a dignified counte- 
nance? or does it bear the tinge of a sneer? Is it 
the Senatorial mode of discarding fundamental 
truths as "mere abstractions?" Am I thus told 
that " such political abstractions might do in the 
original formation of society," but that the sys- 
tem of Slavery has long since been established, 
and that it cannot now be suddenly removed with- 
out danger to the welfare of the slave, as well aa 
the safety of the master? If this be the purport 
of that meaning smile, its truth is granted. I be- 
lieve it, every word. Its truth is conceded by the 
mass of the people of the North and of the West. 
The difficulty of the immediate emancipation of 
large bodies of slaves, in States where it has been 
long established, is as fully understood and as 
freely admitted by the people of the free States 
as by the people of the slave States. 

But, sir, this is not a mere abstraction, when 
applied to Kansas. There, the question is a new 
one. You go there, not to defend old institu- 
tions, but to organize society — to lay the founda- 
tions of a republic de novo. There, you arc free 
from every embarrassment attending the question 
of emancipation in the old States. You go there, 
in advance of organized society, to plant the pil- 
lars of a State, where your will is supreme — where 
you may either approve or prohibit Slavery, as 
your hearts may prompt and your consciencea 
approve. 

Then, if my argument is conclusive as an ab- 
straction, it is equally conclusive when applied to 
the practical question of the introduction of Sla- 
very into all the Territories of this Union where 
it has not previously existed. If the oppression 
of the weak by the strong is wrong in the first 
organization of civil society, and should be pro- 
hibited by law, it should be prohibited in Kansas, 
in Nebraska, in Utah, and in New Mexico, as it 
was prohibited in the Northwest Territory, and 
as it is now prohibited in Minnesota and Oregon. 
It should be prohibited wherever you go to lay 
the foundations of a State — to build up a new 
republic. 

There is an apology for the existence of Sla- 
very in the old thirteen States. When they were 
severed from Great Britain, they inherited the 
institution of Slavery. You found it pre-existing 
in the Territories of Louisiana and the Floridas. 
You acquired it with Texas, in her reception into 
the Union. But it was not acquired with Utah 
and New Mexico. And, in 1854, it had no prac- 
tical existence north of 3G° 30'' in any of your 
Territories. In the great unoccupied Northwest, 
this institution was no part of your inheritance. 
There it can have no existence, unless planted and 
sustained by the strong arm of this Government. 
I will close this point of the discussion by quoting 
an opinion of Hon. John McLean, one of the Jus- 
tices of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
When interrogated on this subject, this learned 
jurist said : 

"Without the sanction of law, Slavery can no 
' more exist in a Territory than a man can breathe 
' without air. Slaves are not property, where 



11 



' tbey are not made so by municipal law. The 
' Legislature of a Territory can exercise no power 
' whicli is not conferred on it by act of Congress." 

If Congress lias power to proliil)it Slavery in 
ftU of her Territories, if natural justice requires 
its prohibition wherever the question is unem- 
barrassed bj' its pre-existence under local legisla- 
tion, it should be prohibited in Kansas without 
delay. There are imperative reasons for the im- 
mediate action of Congress, growing out of the 
peculiar circumstances of its iutrt)duction and 
protection in that Territory. In its introduction, 
violence has attended it at every step — the right 
to the peaceful exercise of the elective franchise 
has been violently overthrown — freedom of speech 
and of the press has been ingloriously trampled 
under foot — legislation has become a mockery — 
the towns of Kansas have been besieged by bel- 
ligerent armies — her plains have been stained by 
the blood of her murdered citizens — the widows' 
wail and the orphans' moan over slaughtered 
husbands and fothers have driven the Goddess of 
Liberty from her temples, while the armies of the 
United States are compelling her freemen to lick 
the dusi at the feet of usurpers. It was intro- 
duced by violence^ and is sustained by furcc. 

Nor has Congress any assurance that this war 
is ended. The people of Missouri are secretly 
marshalling their forces for the conflict. They 
have resolved to continue Slavery in the Territory 
by force. The shadow of the arm of the General 
Government may be used for this purpose ; but i 
the propelling power is in Western Missouri. | 
The people there seem to be laboring under the : 
strange delusion, that the safety of their slaves 
would be greatly endangered by the re-establish- j 
meut of Freedom in Kansas, not reflecting that 
Iowa bounds her on the north by an open line. 
No Chinese wall separates these sister States. 
The people of both States live by each other in 
peace and quiet. No fears seem to be entertained 
that the people of Iowa will steal their slaves, j 
But a strange infatuation seems to have seized 
them in regard to the people of Kansas ; as if the 
more direct route to Canada were by the Rocky 
Mountains. 

The people of western Missouri are not alone; 
the people of the Southern States are contributing 
allies — they are sending men and money to defend 
Slavery in Kansas. The people of the Northern 
States are marshalling opposing armies for the 
same field of strife. Shall Congress sit idly here, 
and await the result of the shock of arms — if, 
indeed, that shall happen — until a fraction of the 
people of this great nation shall settle a great 
question of State policy, on the battle-field, in 
human gore? It is useless to denounce the peo- 
ple of Kansas as traitors to the Union, for dis- 
carding the spurious laws of a spurious Legisla- 
ture. It will be vain to attempt to produce peace 
and quiet, by compelling freemen to submit to 
laws which they never sanctioned. The icill of a 
freeman will not so easily bend. 

But Congress can settle these disturbances in 
a single day, either by suffering Kansas to be- 
come a State, in pursuance of " the true intent 
and meaniny" of the organic act that conferred on 
the people " the right to regulate their own in- 



stitutions in their own waj'," or by amending 
this organic act so as to exclude Slavery from the 
Territory. And I fear it can be settled peacefully 
in no other mode ; for it is now clear, that 
if the citizens of Kansas should finally succeed 
in triumphing over all opposing influences — force, 
fraud, perjury, spurious legislation, and I fear t 
may safely add, the influence of this Adminis- 
tration — and exclude Slavery by a direct vote, 
they have no assurance of peace and quiet ; for 
the same statesmen that deny the power of Con- 
gress to exclude Slavery from the Territories, also 
deny the i)Ower of the Territorial Legislature to 
exclude this species of property. They tell us 
that such legislation by Congress and by Terri- 
torial Legislatures is alike unconstitutional and 
void ; that slaveholders have the right to take 
their slaves into any and all of the Territories 
purchased by tlie common blood and treasure; 
that the Constitution guaranties this right, and 
that all laws excluding them are in bad faith. 

Hence this " squatter sovereignty " doctrine, 
which declares that " the people of a Territory 
shall be left free to regulate their own institutions 
in their own way, is a fraud on the free States. 
When properly understood, it means that the 
people may establish Slavery in the Territories 
if they choose, and that they shall be compelled 
to do so if they refuse ! Nothing more — nothing 
less. It has been introduced into Kansas by 
force, and is now defended by the armies 
of this Government. And the country is dis- 
tinctly notified, that if this defence of Slavery 
in the Territories should be discontinued, that 
the Union of these States shall be dissolved. 

The honorable Senator from South Carolina, 
[Mr. Butler] — ^justly admu-ed for his great tal- 
ents, and venerated tor his candor and integrity — 
a few days since, in a very able speech then 
delivered on this sutije-ct on the floor of the Sen- 
ate, made the impressive and startling declaration, 
"That he wished to be understood — he did not 
' speak rashly — his words were measured — but 
' unless the equality of the States could be pre- 
' served in Territorial legislation, he would advise 
' the people of South Carolina to go out of the 
' Union." This may not be the exact wording of 
the Senators proposition, but it does no violence 
to the sense. He said " deliberately," (and called 
the Senate to note the deliberation) — " with 
measured words " — " that unless the equality of 
the States could be presen-ed in Territorial leg- 
islation, he would advise the people of South 
Carolina to go out of the Union.' 

The character of that '• equality " which must 
be maintained for the States, to prevent a disso- 
lution of the Union by the Southern States, is 
more elaborately expressed by the honorable Sen- 
ator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs.] That I may not 
seem to do him injustice, I quote first from his 
recent speech delivered in the Senate. He says : 

" We intend that the actual bona fiJe settlers of 
' Kansas shall be protected in the full exercise of 
' all the rights of freemen; that, unawedand un- 
' controlled, they shall freelv and of their own 
' will legislate for themselves to eveiy extent al- 
' lowed b}' the Constitution, while they have a 
' Territorial Government; and when they shall be 



12 



* in a condition to come into the Union, and may 

* desire it, that they shall come into the Union 
' with whatever republican CoiiEtitutionthcy maj- 
' prefer and adopt for themselves; that in the ex- 
' ercise of these rights they shall be protected 
' against insurrection from within, and invasion 
' from without. The rights arc accorded to 
' them without any reference to the result, and 
' will be maintained, in my opinion, by the South 
' and the North." 

Ag;aa : 

'• 1 know that many gentlemen with M-hom I 
' have corresponded, and from whom Ihaveother- 
' wise heard, in western Missouri, General Atch- 
' ison among them, asked for nothing more. 
' They simply demand that the actual settlers 
' who go to that couutry shall have a fair oppor- 
' tunily to establish those domestic institutions 

* which they may think proper. Geueral Atch- 
' ison took this ground in the Senate. I am 
' very sure he stands upon it now." 

Again : 

'• Against all these conflicting efforts and opin- 
' ions, the frieudsof the Constitution, justice, and 
' equality, have hitherto held, and will continue 
' to hold, the scales of justice even and unshaken. 
' We stiil tell all the Joint owners of this i)ublic 
' domain to enter and enjoy it, both in the North 
' and the South, ^\■ith property of ever}^ sort; ex- 
' ercise the full powers of American freemen ; leg- 
' islate for yourselves to any and every extent, 
' and upon any and every subject allowed by our 
' common Constitution : the Federal Government 
' will protect you against all who attempt to dis- 
' turb you in the exercise of these invaluable 
' rights ; and when you have become powerful 
' and strong enough to bear the burdens, and de- 
' sire it, we will admit you into the family of sove- 
' reigns, without reference to your opinions and 
' your action upon African Slavery. Decide that 
' question for yourselves, and we will sustain 
' your decision, because it is your right to make 
' it. This is the policy of the Kansas bill ; it 
' wrongs no man — no section of our common 
' country." 

But this is the pleasant spicing to an unpleasant 
dish. It is a kind of sophistry which deceives by 
its apparent fairness, and which is so finely' ex- 
pressed as to create a desire to leave its beauty 
nnmarred. But how is its logic affected by the 
following, from the honorable Senator's Boston 
speech ? 

" The constitutional construction of this point 
' by the South works no wrong to any portion of 
' the Bepublic, to no sound rules of construction. 
' and promotes the declared purposes of the Con- 
' stitution. We simply propose that the common 
' Territories be left o[)eu to the common enjoy- 
' ment of all the people of the United States, that 
' they shall be protected in their persons and 
' property by the Federal Government until its 
' authority is superseded by a State Constitution ; 
' and then we propose that the character of the 
' domestic institutions of the new State be de- 
' termined by the freemen thereof. This is just- 
' ice — this is constitutional equality." 

Here, sir, v.hat 1 have shown to be true, as a 
logical sequence from the denial of power in 



Congress to exclude Slavery from the Territories, 
is distinctly avowed. The honorable Senator 
from Georgia [Mr. Toomus] declares this to be 
"the constitutional construction of this point by 
the South." He says : 

" We still tell all the joint-owners of this pub- 
' lie domain to enter and enjoy it, both in the 
' North and in the South, with property of even/ 
' ^ortJ' '• That, unawed and uncontruUed, they 
' shall freely, and of their own will, legLsiate for 
' themselves to every extent allowtd bj" the CoN- 
' STiTUTioN, tvhilc tkcy have a Territorial Govtrn- 
' ment." 

But the "construction" of their "constitution- 
al " powers " by the South," he tells us, is . 
" That the common Territories be left open to tlie 
' common enjoyment of all the people of the United 
■ States," "with their property of even/ yorl:" that 
this properly shall be protected " by the Federal 
' Government, until iVa authority is superseded by 
' a State Constituiton ; " and that then, not b(/ore, 
" the domestic institutions of the 7icu; State may 
' be determined by the freemen thereof." Yes, 
sir, this is "the equality of the States," which, 
we are gravely told by able Southern Senators, 
"in measured words," th.it mtist be preserved in 
the national Territories, if you would perpetnate 
the Union. You must continue Slavery in all the 
Territories, and protect it by the strong arm of 
the Federal Government as long as these Terri- 
torial Governments continue, or the honorable 
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] will 
advise the people of that State to dissolve the 
Union. 

From this we may readily infer why those who 
have resolved to make Kansas a slave State will 
resist her admission into the Union until her pop- 
ulation shall have reached ninety-three thousand. 
Slavery is to be continued by force as long as the 
Territorial Government lasts ; but when that 13 
superseded by a State Government, her people 
are to have the gracious privilege of determining 
for themselves tlie character of their domestic 
institutions ! This is a feature of " self-govern- 
ment" for Kansas, which the jieople of the NortJi 
and of the West have not hitherto fully under- 
stood. They supposed their free sons, though 
poor in worldly wealth, might go to Kansas with 
nothing but hard hands, with strong arms, with 
sane minds, and with honest hearts, and hy their 
own votes settle the question of Slavery at onc-e 
and forever. But in this they were grievously 
deceived. The equality claimed by Southern 
States requires that Slavery shall continue, and 
receive the protection of the strong arm of the 
Federal Government, in all the common Territo- 
ries, until superseded by State Governments ; that 
then they may abolish it or continue it, at discre- 
tion. This is the equality tendered to the North; 
this is the equality claimed by the South — the use 
and occupancy of all your Territories by slave- 
holding communities during the entira period of 
the continuance of Territorial Governments ! This 
modest demand sounds to my ear very much like 
the claim of the lion's share. And men are de- 
nounced on the floor of the Senate as fanatics, 
i as disunionists, as Black Republicans, and as 
i traitors to the Government, who discard such a 



13 



cor-'fnr.c'.'r'fi of tlie p'oM ihn-!er of Freedom — the 
(.■o:)s:itutiun of ihv Uiiii,ed Stuies. 

Sir, it is (tpiuiront lo the least observant, that 
if vo'.i osta!)li;;h vSiavci-y iu Kansas, and dufonJ it 
wit,h i lie. armies of the nation, iis you are now 
dojn;;, uivtii hoc |)0(jul;'.iiou sLiall ixMch uinely- 
thiV'n ciii"ii;-.d,:;d. it will Imve Ijoxome so tirmly es- 
tabiisliL'd. ;ind so deeply rooted a,nd interwoven 
M'ith the frame-work of society, as to render its 
removal a, pracl.ieiU impossibility; as much so as 
it now is in Missouri, Kentucky, or Louisiana. 
Slarery has never been pemoved from any one 
(rfthe new States admitted into the Union. 

'Sir. President, this " equality of States " in the 
Territories, which permits and defends Slavery in 
(ill of the Territories, crumbles under a careful 
analysis, as readily as the doctrine of "squatter 
sovereignty." The doctrine, "that the people of 
' all the States may enjoy the common Q'errito- 
' ries, with their property of ever;/ sort, as a baud 
' of brothers, until their pni)ilage is terminated by 
' a State Government, and that then they may 
' frame such institutions as they desire," seems 
so plausible in fact, and so beautiful in theory, 
as to almost palsy the tongue and bewilder the 
brain of him who disputes its truth. Nothing- 
was ever more false, that seemed so fair. Tho es- 
tablishment and continuance of Slavery in the 
Territories not only predetermines the question 
for the future States, but it violates the very 
equality which it pretends to foster and protect. 

The millions of hardy laborers of the North 
and Northwest will not live in a slaveholding 
community. I need not answer "why?"' A 
thousand reasons are on their tongues. To you 
it may seem to be the result of a sickly scntlraent- 
alism. To them their conclusions seem to be the 
result of the clearest reasoning, sustained by the 
strongest sense of moral duty. If, then, you es- 
tablish. Slavery in the Territories, yon exclvdc them 
from the enjoyment of this common heritage. 
The thousands and tens of thousands of men and 
women of the ^ree North who migrate to the 
"West are laborers. JIany of them go to your new 
Territories with no capital except industrious 
habits, strong arms, generous hearts, and lofty 
purposes. They go to form new communities 
and a nev,r society, where labor is honorable: vrhere 
he who is too proud to work is discarded ; where 
lie who refuses, by his own toil, to add something 
to the solid capital of the country, is disgraced ; 
where the industrious, the vigilant, and the fru- 
gal, are honored and promoted ; where, in time, 
nearly all live in theirown houses, cultivate their 
own soil, and run their own machinery. They 
live on a common platform of equality, because 
all are willing to labor for a living. Such men 
will never so degrade theniselvea as to labor in the 
fields, side by side, with Southern slaves. 

Estiiblish Slavery in the common Territories, 
av.d you exclude the working men of the North ; 
prohibit Slavery in the Territories, and you ex- 
clude slaveholders. Which is the greater " ine- 
quality?" The white population of the United 
States was reported by the officers of the Gov- 
ei'nment in 1850 at about twenty millions ; the 
number of slaveholders, at less ih^n. one quarte:- 
'^f a million. If this be true, the enactment of 



laws excluding Slavery from the Territories 
would deprivi! less than a quarter of a mdlion or 
the citizens of the country of the right to hold 
a species of properly there, which nineteen mil- 
lions seven bun^lrtd and fifty thousand of their 
fellow-couuirymeu discard. Nineteen and three 
fourths millions of the people of the United States 
may still go to Kansas wiih their " property of 
every kind." The quarter of a million may go 
on equal terms. To make room for the t-lnves of 
the one quarter of a million, yon are reciuired to 
exclude tlie free millions of the North ; for, by 
establishing Slavery in the Territories, }'0U prac- 
tically exclude free laborers, who are too proud 
to become the companions of slaves. Is this 
right? Is it just? Is that constitutional equal- 
ity ? 

For myself, sir, I am free to admit that I am 
one of the number practically e.'icluded. I 
esteem it no disgrace to say, sir, in the Senate 
of the United States, that from childhood I have 
been taught to labor. The sweat of my brow 
has been my only capital. I have been required 
to fullill the edict pronounced by the Almighty, 
in the original formation of the human family, 
" that by the sweat of his brow he shall earn his 
bread." 

On a platform of equality, I have never been 
disposed to shrink from an honorable competition 
with the most favored in life's ever-recurring con- 
flicts ; but, sir, I never will, by act or vote of mine, 
place myself in a condition to struggle for posi- 
tion in social life with those whose slaves are the 
companions of my daily toils. If I would not 
thus stultify myself, I will not thus wrong my 
child. I would be equally pleased to see him com- 
pete, in the school-room, at the black-board, 
in the lecture-room, on the rostrum, in the 
field, or in the shop, with the son of the South- 
erner as well as the son of the Northerner. But, 
sir, I never could feel a father's pride in wit'.jess- 
ing his struggles for position in the polite circles, 
while I had, by vote of mine, made him the cora- 
])anion of slaves at his daily labor. Rather than 
sec him reduced to a practical inequality of this 
kind, I would prefer to seB his eyes plucked out 
and given to the eagles, and his heart snatched 
out and given to tlie vultures. Place him on a 
platform of e(juality — let him labor in the same 
sphere, with the same chances of success and pro- 
motion — let the contest be exactly equal bctM-een 
him and others; and if, in the conflict of 
mind with mind, he should sink beneath the bil- 
low, let him perish ! — but by no vote or act of 
mine will I give him an unequal battle. If I could 
not thus wrong my own child, I will not, as a Sen- 
ator representing in pait one of the St:ites of this 
Union, by any official act of mine, either exclude 
her free citizens from the enjoyment of our com- 
mon Territories, or [ilace them in companionship 
with the field-hands of Southern planters. 
I It is this claim of Southern statesmen to the use 
I of all the Territories for slavcholding communi- 
j ties, that is upheaving the elements of society, and 
I dissolving old parties. North and West. The crj 
of Black Republicanism, nor the threat to dissolve 
I the Union, will stay the swelling wave. The cry 
i of Abolitionism will be equally impotent. 



14 



" Abolitionist," with its original meaning, was 
exceedingly odious in the North and West, as 
well as South. When it meant an oiticious inter- 
meddling of the people of one State with the do- 
mestic affairs of another — when it was said to 
mean social equality and amalgamation of the 
two races, there were but few to approve it; and 
I, sir, was ne\-er one of tliat number. While I 
saw no generic distinction between the two 
races, it has always seemed to me that something 
was due to the common instincts, affinities, and 
decencies of lite; all of which were so flagrantly 
violated by the great Democratic part}', in 183G, 
by elevating a practical amalgamationist to the 
second office in the gift of the nation, and again 
in 1840, by attempting to repeat the outrage. I 
never acted with such a party ; I never consulted 
them, advised with them, nor voted for them. 1 
have always defended the right of the people of 
the Southern States " to regulate their own do- 
mestic institutions in their own way." But, sir, 
I claim an equal right for the people of the whole 
country, by their representatives in Congress, to 
regulate the domestic institutions of all the Terri- 
tories belonging to the United States. This is 
constitutional equality, as I understand it. Let 
each ^tate contTol its own domestic affairs, within 
its own jurisdiction; and let Congress control the 
domestic affairs of the nation, wherever her sov- 
ereignty is unrestricted by an existing State Gov- 
ernment. And I shall not be deterred from the 
defence of this position by the cry of Abolition- 
ism. 

And now, Mr. President, I conclude these desul- 
tory remarks by recapitulating the argument. I 
conclude that the Congress of the United States 
has power to prohibit Slavery in the Territories 
of the United States — 

1. Because Congress has exercised this power 
by declaratory acts following the acquisition of 
the Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Territory, 
the State of Texas, and Oregon. 

2. Because Congress has prohibited Slavery in 
the organization of Territorial Governments, and 
in the admission of States formed out of all terri- 
tory where Slavery did not previously exist, em- 
bracing all that vast country north of the Ohio 



I river and 36«' 30'' of north latitude, extending 
' from the eastern line of Ohio to the Pacific Ocean — 

embracing a period of time commencing with 

1787, and reaching to 1850. 

3. Because there is not on record, in all the 
adjudication of all the courts of the country, 
State and National, extending from the foundation 
of the Government to the present moment, a 
single adverse decision. 

4. Because, in the acquisition of the Territories, 
the Government of the United States acquired full, 
complete, and exclusive sovereignty over them, 
as the successor of the sovereigns from whom 
they were procured, of which she cannot divest 
herself until she transfers this sovereignty to State 
Governments. 

5. Because this power is indirectly asserted in 
the Kansas-Nebraska act. conferring on the peo- 
ple of the Territories the power to legislate on all 
suitable subjects of legislation, and to regulate 
their own domestic institutions in their own way — 
since a power could never be transferred, which 
was not previously held by Congress. 

Secondly, I conclude that this power ought to 
be exercised in the organization of Territorial 
Governments where Slavery did not previously 
exist — 

1. Because natural justice, as interpreted by 
the fathers of the Republic, demands it. 

2. Because the supposed or real inferiority of 
the African race increases instead of diminishes 
the obligations of civil society to protect him from 
the oppression of the strong and powerful. 

3. Because equality among the people of all the 
State? requires it: the permission of Slavery in 
the Territories practically excluding an over- 
whelming majority of the American people from 
their occupancy. 

4. Because the peace and quiet of the Territo- 
ries requires that this, and all great questions of 
State, should be settled by the supreme legisla- 
ture. 

And, lastly, because its speedy exercise seems 
to be the only means for restoring to the people 
of Kansas the rights of freemen, of which they 
have been deprived by violence. 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 

1856. 



TO THE OPPONEM\S OY SLAVEllY-EXTEIsSIO: 



A J'residential Canvass of uviu.vual siprnifieance is about to open — one of wliioli 
th<i result must go far to dct^ernnne whether Liborty or Shivery is to bo the puio- 
ttar of our National course — whether tlic vast unpeopled regions, confided by 
l-*rovidonco to our keeping!;, shall be subdued and cultivated by intelligent, happy 
fr(>enieii, or by lashed and blinded slaves. It is most i'.nportant that the tr\ie 
bearings of this contest be set forth and ditTused. not in the heat of the struggle, 
after every one shall have taken his position and resolved to maintain it, but 
DOW, while the popular mind is measurably calm and unprejudiced. In view of 
t!i<\«e considerations, the National Publishing Committee have issued, and will 
continue from time to time to publish, the most important Speeches and Essays 
which have appeared and shall appear on the side of Free Labor and Human 
llights, which, we trust, those who love the cause will purchase for gratuitous 
circulation among their friends and neighbors, with an eye to the struggle bc- 
ft)re us. 

Eight page documents vnll be furnished at the rate of G2cts. per 100 copies, 
and 10 page documents at $l--5 per 100 copies, free of postage. "Where 500 
or more copies are ordered of any oiie docun.ent, a discount of liO per cent, will 
be made; from these rates. 

In order to facilitate their circulation, no exfra charge will be made for en- 
veloping and directing them to such nances as may be furnished. 

The very low price at which these documents are furnished, puts it within the 
reach of evejy one to aid in their distribution. 

Address, L. CLEPHANE. 

Sccretc!i\i/, Viashington, D. C. 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS AI.PEADY PUBLISHED. 

At (yl rents per 100 roping — i/'''-'^ of pm^tagr.^ 

Dof'nce of Kansas. By llev. rl. "\V. j Reasons for Joining the Bepublican 

I^L-eclRT. I P.-irtr. By Judpe Foote of Kc.v York. 

Letter of Francis P. Blair to the Be- 1 Kansas Contested Election. Speech of 

puhliufin Associiilion. | Hon. .John A. Bing:n;im of Oliio. 

The Poor Yv'hitcs of the Soutii. By \ Kansas Contested Election. Speech of 

(;oo. M. Weston of Maine. j Hon. John Hickman of Pa. 

Southern Slavery lleduces Northern i Kansas Contested Election. Speech of 

W'A'ivi. Address by Geo. M. Weston, de- j Hon. J. Wr.shbr.rn, Jr. of .\fc. 

livertd in Washington City. | Kansas Afrairs. Speech of Hon. 11. 

Circular Accompanying the Call of the I Waldron of Micliigan. 

National Coramittte appointed at the Pitts- | The Slavery Question. Speech of Hon. 

burv;h Convention. J John Allison of Fa. 

At ^l.'lb per 100 copies — (free of postage.) 

Address of the Pittsburgh Bepublican j The Dangers of Extending Slavery, and 
Conv;;ntion. the Contest and the Crisis. Tvco Speeehes 

Organization of the Free State Govern- } of lion. W. H. Seward. 

nientin Kansas and Inaugnral Address and i Imine<:iate admission of Kansas into the 
Message of Gov. Robinson. | Union. Spceeh of Hon. W. H. Seward 



Judge (3ollanicr's Minority Report on 

Kansas Atfuirs. 
l)r;ition at Plymouth. By Hon. TYm 

H. Se>vavd 



Admission of Kansas. Speech of Hon. 

Jas. Harlan of Iowa. 
The A\'roni!:s of Kansas. Speech of Hon, 

John P. Ha'.c. 



Aifaiis in Kan.sas Tcr.-itory. Speech The State of Affairs in Kansas. Speech 
of Hon. L. Trionbnll of 111. ' of Hon. Chas. Sumner. 

IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE. 

Letter of Francis P. Blair to the Re- j The Contest and the Crisis. Speech of 
publif-an Association. I Hon. W. H. Sev.r.rd. 

Address and Dech\ration of Principles i The Dangers of Extending Slavery, 
of the Pittsburgh Convention. I Speech of Hon. "W. H. Seward. 



n 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 136 026 7 



ri 






.!&"■ 



